It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why did Ron Paul vote 'Noe' on limiting funds for Libya operation?

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 06:52 AM
link   
Link


H R 2278 RECORDED VOTE 24-Jun-2011 2:00 PM
QUESTION: On Passage
BILL TITLE: To limit the use of funds appropriated to the Department of Defense for United States Armed Forces in support of North Atlantic Treaty Organization Operation Unified Protector with respect to Libya, unless otherwise specifically authorized by law


If you scroll down to the list of 'Noes' votes Congressman Ron Paul was on that list. Why did he vote to not limit the funds appropriated to the Department of Defense for the military operation in Libya? It just makes no sense especially considering the fact that he is currently suing the President over this issue so why not vote to defund the mission?




posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 06:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Misoir
 


Because it would authorize the president to go to war. You have to understand by voting yes it would give the president the authority to put troops on the ground. T was a back door approach to approval of the war.



posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 06:56 AM
link   
Sounds like yet another case of a politician saying one thing to fire up his base, and doing something completely different when it comes time for action.

Typical.



posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 07:00 AM
link   
This is why:




posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 07:00 AM
link   
reply to post by negativenihil
 


Not at all. Do your homework guys. By voting yes it acknowledges the war and it's limited funding for bombing, ground troops, aid to the rebels ect. By voting no the president still has no authorization from congress it was a trick by the president to get congress to approve the war. It has already been explained days ago.



posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 07:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Movescamp
 


Perhaps you are thinking of this bill?

Authorizing the limited use of the United States Armed Forces in support of the NATO mission in Libya

Voting yes on that would have allowed troops on the ground in Libya.

Voting yes on this however would have limited the use of funds for the Libya operation.

To limit the use of funds appropriated to the Department of Defense for United States Armed Forces in support of North Atlantic Treaty Organization Operation Unified Protector with respect to Libya, unless otherwise specifically authorized by law

Text of the Bill


To limit the use of funds appropriated to the Department of Defense for United States Armed Forces in support of North Atlantic Treaty Organization Operation Unified Protector with respect to Libya, unless otherwise specifically authorized by law.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON USE OF DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE FUNDS FOR UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES IN SUPPORT OF NATO OPERATION UNIFIED PROTECTOR WITH RESPECT TO LIBYA.

(a) Limitation- None of the funds appropriated or otherwise available to the Department of Defense may be obligated or expended for United States Armed Forces in support of North Atlantic Treaty Organization Operation Unified Protector with respect to Libya, unless otherwise specifically authorized by law.
(b) Exceptions- The limitation on funds under subsection (a) does not apply with respect to--
(1) search and rescue;
(2) intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance;
(3) aerial refueling; and
(4) operational planning.


Why would Paul vote 'NOE' on that?



posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 07:08 AM
link   
At this point ANYTHING Ron Paul does is for the citizens verses the big one world government crowd. If you doubt it and have done your homework, you HAVE TO BE one of THEM that wants the people of the Earth as money slaves to the elites. Cong. Paul has proven over and over to my satisfaction that the bulk of Congress and politicians in general do not give a flip about Justice, Peace, or protecting the citizens of the United States. In fact the ONLY thing I see them protect are their personal wealth. I am sick of the truth being slammed by spin doctors in our now full of s**t media bought and paid for by the elites. Wake up your neighbors to voting these bastards out or we will CEASE TO EXIST. And when the USA goes away, so will hope for the downtrodden people of this Earth to ever obtain freedom.



posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 07:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Movescamp
reply to post by negativenihil
 


Not at all. Do your homework guys. By voting yes it acknowledges the war and it's limited funding for bombing, ground troops, aid to the rebels ect. By voting no the president still has no authorization from congress it was a trick by the president to get congress to approve the war. It has already been explained days ago.


Well I figured I must have missed something because I doubted Ron Paul would betray us and his principles like that.



posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 07:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Misoir
 


No any vote would authorize the war. However "limited" it may seem. If the congress votes yea it gives the pres authority. I they vote no the pres is screwed and still has no congressional authority at all. Watch the video.



posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 07:21 AM
link   
Some of these bills are written to make one thing look like something else...so that a vote can be misconstrued by the media and the masses....this one is like saying...

"Do you want money to stop beating your wife?"

I am not beating my wife....

"Do you want money to stop beating your wife?"

If I say yes...then I admit I am beating my wife (when I haven't)...If I say no...then it looks like I don't want to stop beating my wife...( when I haven't)

THANK YOU all for bringing this up and explaining the vote...I am seriously considering voting for Paul. Whew...for a minute, I thought he was losing his moral compass.



posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 07:29 AM
link   
Ron Paul votes no on most bills, so this doesn't surprise me, also according to gov.track the full bill is not available yet, but there are a lot of technicalities to it


Prohibits, unless otherwise specifically authorized by law, funds appropriated or otherwise available to the Department of Defense (DOD) from being obligated or expended for U.S. Armed Forces in support of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Operation Unified Protector with respect to Libya, except for: (1) search and rescue; (2) intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance; (3) aerial refueling; and (4) operational planning.


www.govtrack.us...

Basically voting yes to this bill would just be a white wash where they make it seem like they are cutting funds but really are allowing other things like search and rescue and operational planning. Kind of like the Texas TSA bill that does nothing to change TSA policy, so really voting yes to this bill would just be more authorization of what is already happening. If I handed you a contract that seems to be full of legal technicalities and you don't trust it, why would you vote yes to it?



posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 07:35 AM
link   
everytime i hear ron paul speak i get goosebumps. brilliant, brilliant man.



posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 09:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Misoir
 


We are so screwed! We cannot spell a two letter word? We cannot spell a two letter word? Not only that, we will then admit our stupidity and post the mis-spelled two letter word on the internet so all the world can see how stupid we really are. God help us...we cannot spell a two letter word.



posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 11:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Misoir
 


That bill is to make legal the illegal things we are doing. It's like killing a bunch of people and then legalizing murder. Wait... I guess that's not even an analogy since that's exactly what it is.

I feel bad because the typically anti-war party (democrats) have to face the brunt of the things that started waaaaay before Obama but somebody's got to get caught with the smoking gun. This administration had its chance to steer from our evil path and failed.



posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Grumpy20
reply to post by Misoir
 


We are so screwed! We cannot spell a two letter word? We cannot spell a two letter word? Not only that, we will then admit our stupidity and post the mis-spelled two letter word on the internet so all the world can see how stupid we really are. God help us...we cannot spell a two letter word.


If you are referring to 'Noe' then this just shows that you cannot even click a link, God help us... we cannot click a link.


The way our House of Representatives votes is 'Aye' and 'Noe' hence the reason I wrote it that way.



posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by negativenihil
Sounds like yet another case of a politician saying one thing to fire up his base, and doing something completely different when it comes time for action.

Typical.


Yeah, sorry but your wrong.

Ron Paul is against that bill because it ALLOWS the president to do exactly what he is doing right now. Ron Paul is AGAINST what Obama is doing, and this bill is just a trick to make what Obama is currently doing legal. Ron Paul isn't stupid enough to fall for it, and because of that you call it typical, and accuse him of saying one thing and doing another? How lame.

This just goes to show, yet again, the mentality of people who attempt to attack Ron Paul. If you disagree with his ideas, that's fine. But when you resort to lies and attacks based on your own lack of understanding, that's when I get pissed.
edit on 29-6-2011 by James1982 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 11:10 PM
link   
Yeah I hate it when con men try to work their craft on the unsuspecting. Thank goodness we have Dr. Paul to look out for us. Sometimes I think he's the only one that actually reads the bills put up for review.

/TOA



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 06:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Old American
Yeah I hate it when con men try to work their craft on the unsuspecting. Thank goodness we have Dr. Paul to look out for us. Sometimes I think he's the only one that actually reads the bills put up for review.

/TOA

You sir are RIGHT!

Also on a side note, I love your avatar.



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 03:39 PM
link   
Sort of like impeaching a Prez who is not legit to begin with....



new topics

top topics



 
3

log in

join